The Role of Virtuosity in Progressive Music

PS

Kati wrote: Dean wrote: DiamondDog wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: The hunch that many of the guys and ladies we call virtuosos in the rock world are possibly seen as not much more than simply decent musicians by good classically trained musicians (e.g. those playing with respected orchestras, and not limiting to instrumentalists but including also composers) is always lurking in these discussions. Besides the purely technical instrumentalist skill level, knowledge of theory etc, many classically-oriented people remark that a lot of renowned rock musicians would be lost without the figure of the producer who is the one converting their 'half-baked amateur-level ideas and limited understanding of sound' into music worth listening to. Classical orchestras made of competent musicians do not need a producer to sound good (they may need a sound engineer to adapt to the venue characteristics or to master the recording process but that's not in the same sense, rock bands can really take radically different sounds depending on the producer). Personally I'm not so harsh and I prefer to see it as comparing apples with oranges, with classical musicians virtuosity focusing more on consistently precise execution, while rock musicians are allowed to showcase talents which classical musicians have often inhibited (that's not saying that improvisation does not exist in classical music, it certainly does for the soloists). What are your thoughts on the subject? Those classically trained musicians are probably right about most renowned rock musicians.  They're dead wrong about all the other rock musicians who aren't famous but are actually good at what they do. I agree with you that it's apples and oranges, but at the same time there are rock guitarists out there who can excel in "academic" (as much as I hate to use that term) styles, too.  Even the guitarists in Avenged Sevenfold (a band whom I loathe) have jazz degrees, for crying out loud.  No classical musician is going to convince me that John Petrucci or Steve Howe or Robert Fripp can't hold their own up against classical/jazz artists. I'm with the apples and oranges theory. I doubt very much if those classical musicians could cut it in a Rock band context. Much of classical is learning to play a piece methodically from reading the music; it often requires great or very good technique, but any talented rock musician could do the same (assuming he/she could read music, which is, after all, only an information system). The Rock musician, therefore, can transcend the two genres. I'm not so sure that many classical musicians could survive beyond their own comfort zone. I think you have that back-to-front. Many classical musicians are also members of jazz bands, if they can do jazz they can do rock. I'm not convinced your average rock musican could cut it in an classical orchestra.   My view is that there are different types virtousos with many exceptions, comparing them would not be fair. As an example classical trained musicians are trained and wired differently many can't think beyond the rules (or rather ouside the box) they can easily compose and write something knowing how the notes will sound in their head exactly even without  having to play the instrument, some lack the creativity to experiment because in their mind it's against the rules. Meanwhile others not necessary classically trained play what they feel and come up with the most memorable licks, most stunning music. A great example of this is Roine Stolt from TFK he does not know how to read music notes however his music style is credited, copied and taught at the University in Sweden.

I've watched rock, jazz and classical concerts and rock was in my experience by far the least dynamic.  Unless all these bands are just KC-clones....but I've heard heavy metal, extreme metal, hard rock and they simply play the studio album note for note.  There was hardly any variation, let alone improvisation.   At least, as presdoug says, different performances of the same classical composition would convey different nuances depending on the conductor but if you've seen one Iron Maiden concert, you've seen them all.    

DiamondDog wrote: Disagree entirely with it being said that if you can play jazz you can play rock. Most jazz musicians are too soft in approach and lacking in many respects. Jazz, though ideal for improvisation of a free nature, seldom contains the dynamic qualities natural to a talented rock musician. Also doubt that many classical musicians are good at even playing jazz, certainly not the majority by any means. As well as that, classical musicians, as I said, have to follow a set piece and repeat it ad infinitum. Any talented person can learn a piece, however difficult it is. I don't believe your average classical musician could live in even a reasonable rock band without a long time learning his new set piece. Of course, these are generalities. There will always be exceptions, but they are not the norm at all.

This reminds me of a musical experience I had.  I grew up playing rock bands (I play bass).  Some time ago I decided to take the "plunge" and responded to an ad by jazz scholars (it was a jazz teacher, and some final year jazz students) that needed a bassist.  I knew I was in over my head, but decided to do it anyway.  I remember that first rehearsal day very well.  We played Charlie Parker's "Ornithology", "Blue Monk" by Thelonious Monk, some other standards. After that we did a funk rock jam over a bass groove I laid down.  I will tell you one thing.  Before that day I have NEVER experienced musicians with so much feeling for what is happening in a studio as these guys.  They absorb ANY changes done by anyone in that room in an instant, and adapt with it.  That drummer was onto anything I was playing.  It was the most educative experience I have ever had in music.  And these guys could play funk rock like you wont believe.  No problems whatsoever.  I am not saying that rock musos dont feel what others are doing, but I have never experienced people responding to mood like scholared jazz folks.
If you have played rock bands your entire life, I suggest you give this a try.  Get out of your comfort zone and go try some jazz with some guys that know what they are doing.  You cannot understand what it is by looking at a video or listening to a track on radio.  You have to experience this first hand.

Whooohaaaaaa ooohhhhhhh aahhhhh just in case of any doubts do listen to this and it's live too!

Didn't see this thread before but then someone posted a new response and it was resurrected so to speak.

Edited by dr wu23 - April 06 2013 at 12:00

dr wu23 wrote:     Just curious but can someone point out a really good known prog band that doesn;t have talented palyers on a virtuosic level..?

Good question, and as I try to recall, I find at least one arguably virtuosic musician in well known prog rock bands, if by that is meant the first tier.  I think I had mentioned earlier in the thread too that somebody playing stuff like prog rock for a very long time in good bands must likely be a master of his instrument and people tend to underestimate the skills of musicians whose work doesn't appeal to their personal tastes. 

dr wu23 wrote: And what's the defining point between virtuosity and just a good musician..?

My view is that a good musician is one who plays the notes he's asked to correctly and has an above average level of artistic sense.   While a virtuoso has huge command over his chosen instrument to the point where he can re-imagine its possibilities.  Think Bill Bruford or take Petrucci's blistering alternate picked runs (I think!) in a power ballad like Spirit Carries On.   One tends to think that playing a very fast solo on a ballad can be off putting and imagines Hackett/Gilmour-like golden notes re-iterated over and over for effect.  But Petrucci plays so fast and yet with so much melody that it fits.  Some people may still find the very idea of metal guitar shredding on a ballad akin to pulling teeth but, objectively, I appreciate the fluency of his execution. 

Dayvenkirq wrote: dr wu23 wrote: Just curious but can someone point out a really good known prog band that doesn;t have talented palyers on a virtuosic level? Pink Floyd.

Edited by moshkito - April 06 2013 at 18:06

Dayvenkirq wrote: dr wu23 wrote: Just curious but can someone point out a really good known prog band that doesn;t have talented palyers on a virtuosic level? Pink Floyd.

Not essential, but certainly helps, and is common in prog